Re: [dispatch] RFC 3680 extensibility

Hi,

So, it would be the same policy as we have for info packages.

Thanks!

Regards,

Christer

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gonzalo Camarillo 
> Sent: 14. kesäkuuta 2010 9:42
> To: WORLEY, Dale R (Dale)
> Cc: Christer Holmberg; DISPATCH list
> Subject: Re: [dispatch] RFC 3680 extensibility
> 
> Hi,
> 
> yes, I agree with Dale that, technically, the system is ready 
> to handle interoperability even in presence of unknown 
> stuff... but the question here is whether or not we have a 
> policy that regulates the creation of such extensions.
> 
> XML namespaces are not covered by RFC 5727. However, Section 
> 4.2 of RFC
> 3863 specifies rules for registering extensions to the basic 
> presence information data format:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3863#section-4.2
> 
> Considering the spirit of RFC 5727 and the example above, a 
> potential policy could be to register reg-event extensions 
> with the IANA using the Specification Required policy defined 
> in RFC 5226. In this case, this would mean that the extension 
> would be defined in a 3GPP spec and revised by an expert who 
> would be designated by the RAI ADs. The expert reviewer would 
> make sure that new extensions do not overlap with current IETF work.
> 
> In any case, we would welcome further comments on this issue.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gonzalo
> 
> 
> On 11/06/2010 7:06 PM, WORLEY, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
> > ________________________________________
> > From: dispatch-bounces@ietf.org [dispatch-bounces@ietf.org] 
> On Behalf 
> > Of Christer Holmberg [christer.holmberg@ericsson.com]
> > 
> > Section 5.1 of RFC 3680 (reg event package) says:
> > 
> > "Other elements from different namespaces MAY be present for the 
> > purposes of extensibility; elements or attributes from unknown 
> > namespaces MUST be ignored."
> > 
> > However, there is no policy regarding whether the 
> definition of these "other namespaces" needs to be done in 
> IETF - only that they must be ignored if not supported.
> > 
> > 3GPP has been discussing a couple of IMS specific cases, in 
> which such extension elements/attributes could be used as 
> solution (no decissions have been made yet), so the question 
> is whether it would require IETF work.
> > ________________________________________
> > 
> > The rule that unknown elements/attributes must be ignored 
> covers you there, doesn't it?  If a non-3GPP system 
> subscribes to an "extended" event package, it will ignore the 
> extensions.
> > 
> > Dale
> > _______________________________________________
> > dispatch mailing list
> > dispatch@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
> > 
> 
> 